The Virgin Birth of Points
in [Physics]
|
From: Wolf Kirchmeir on 14 Nov 2007 08:39 Robert J. Kolker wrote: > Wolf Kirchmeir wrote:> >> What about the fries? Do they form a Mandelbrot set? > > Only if mixed with almonds. > > Bob Kolker > LOL
From: Wolf Kirchmeir on 14 Nov 2007 08:41 Traveler wrote: > On Tue, 13 Nov 2007 18:30:29 -0800, William Hughes > <wpihughes(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >> You need to define points and line segments. > > Nobody can define them in any way that does not lead to an infinite > regress. The truth is that there are no such things as points, lines, > distance, size, surfaces, etc... They are all illusions of perception. > There exist only particles and these have no size. Having no size is > not synonymous with having zero size. Size simply does not exist. It > is not a property of nature. There is no law that requires anything to > have size. Yet particles have properties such as position, > orientation, energy, etc... Size is abstract, being the abstract > vector difference between two positions. > > Distance is thus an illusion. It is conceivable that, in the future, > we will have technologies that will allow us to move from any position > to any other, instantly. We already have evidence of this in the > phenomenon known as quantum jumps. For more on the non-existence of > space, see the link below. > > Nasty Little Truth About Space: > http://www.rebelscience.org/Crackpots/nasty.htm#Space > > Louis Savain Zeno loves this argument.
From: Randy Poe on 14 Nov 2007 11:32 On Nov 13, 10:09 pm, William Hughes <wpihug...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On Nov 13, 9:58 pm, Traveler <trave...(a)noasskissers.net> wrote: > > > On Tue, 13 Nov 2007 18:30:29 -0800, William Hughes > > > <wpihug...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >You need to define points and line segments. > > > Nobody can define them in any way that does not lead to an infinite > > regress. > > Piffle. > Well, Hilbert didn't say exactly that, but I believe the point of his comment that "One must be able to say at all times-instead of points, lines, and planes---tables, chairs, and beer mugs" was that you *don't* need to define these things, only the axioms that define their properties. - Randy
From: Robert J. Kolker on 14 Nov 2007 11:52 Traveler wrote: > ahahaha... Yo, Billie. Your opinion matters because of what again? > ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha... > > Louis Savain Louis, since space does not exist may I assume that you are nowhere? Nor does your body possess dimension or extension? Gee, I wish I could do that. Bob Kolker
From: Robert J. Kolker on 14 Nov 2007 11:54
Traveler wrote: > On Tue, 13 Nov 2007 18:30:29 -0800, William Hughes > <wpihughes(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >>You need to define points and line segments. > > > Nobody can define them in any way that does not lead to an infinite > regress. The truth is that there are no such things as points, lines, > distance, size, surfaces, etc... They are all illusions of perception. > There exist only particles and these have no size. Having no size is > not synonymous with having zero size. Size simply does not exist. It > is not a property of nature. There is no law that requires anything to > have size. Yet particles have properties such as position, > orientation, energy, etc... Size is abstract, being the abstract > vector difference between two positions. When you go to a shoe or clothing store how do you order the merchandise you want? Do you say to the salesperson I want to buy a size ????? suit? Bob Kolker |